Keh repairs cameras and sells used equipment. I have purchased many items from them and have found them to be extremely reliable. Packaging was good. Everything arrived in good shape and in the condition stated. I don't think I have purchased anything they rate as UG (ugly). Nor have I purchased NEW or LN (like new). I usually purchase items rated EX (excellent) or EX+ (excellent +)

The only disagreement I have with Tao's suggestions above is that one can read into it an inference that a macro lens is only "useful for doing a large amount of macro work." A macro lens focuses from very close to infinity. Macro usually means tiny things like insects to more people. But "near macro" can be larger objects such as flowers. A "macro" lens can be used to shoot landscapes and portraits and flowers as well as insects. Your 24-85 kit lens already contains a 60mm setting. Anything you would now photograph at that 60mm setting can be photographed with a 60mm macro lens. That is why I referred to it as a lens which can do "double duty."

@Tao, you busted me, I don't know what I want. :P I am just trying to learn here. I don't think I even knew what I was asking for, but I have learned a lot from this discussion. This really is a great group of people! Thank you all!

What I think I would ask now, is what is a good compliment to my 24-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR. I thought that would be a prime of some sort. I assumed that the zoom would be less sharp than a prime, but maybe that idea is outdated. Perhaps a good compliment would be something that is sharp and fast, like the 50mm or 60mm. I really don't know, which is why I was asking what I should be thinking about and saving for.

First, every current lens in Nikon's line up is sharp. There is no such thing as a bad or dull lens. Some are sharper than other, but none will keep you from taking great images.

I base my lens purchases (actually updates/upgrades) based on what range I shoot the most of. In Lightroom you can see how many photos one takes with any lens and aperture range. If you like macro - look at a 60mm. If you like a wide, get a wide. None of us, and it sounds like you may not as well, know what you want to shoot and expand your experience with. Sometimes you just have to shoot more to find out.

A 50mm is a natural choice and many had used one as their only lens for most of their shots. That said, it is the cheapest as well.

spraynpray said:
I always thought 'Normal' when applied to lenses referred to the perspective not the angle of view. Shorter than 50mm (on full frame) stretches it and longer compresses it.

BTW Godless you didn't say what you are on - DX or FX? I generally agree with your point though. I find 50mm on DX completely <meh> but that is just my opinion.

It's so hard to discuss lenses when you're not using them at the same crop factor. I'd been shooting portraits on dx for the past couple of years before switching to the D600 a few weeks ago. 50mm was a sweet spot for head and shoulders on DX for me. I picked up the 50 1.4g and the 85 1.8 for the d600 (and a number of other primes). We've done a few shoots now with these two lenses and i'm feeling like 50mm on FF wont get that much use. The 85 1.8 and the 105 f2 DC are probably going to be the most commonly used lenses for me. But we all have our own style, subject of choice and taste.

TaoTeJared said:
First, every current lens in Nikon's line up is sharp. There is no such thing as a bad or dull lens. Some are sharper than other, but none will keep you from taking great images.

I base my lens purchases (actually updates/upgrades) based on what range I shoot the most of. In Lightroom you can see how many photos one takes with any lens and aperture range. If you like macro - look at a 60mm. If you like a wide, get a wide. None of us, and it sounds like you may not as well, know what you want to shoot and expand your experience with. Sometimes you just have to shoot more to find out.

A 50mm is a natural choice and many had used one as their only lens for most of their shots. That said, it is the cheapest as well.

Just wanted to quote this because it's wonderful advice. I have bought and sold so many lenses over the years. As my style and subject of choice evolved my preference for lenses changed with it. I guess one nice thing about camera lenses is that they do hold their value fairly well and there always seems to be an active 2nd hand market so if you end up buying something only to later realize that it's just collecting dust, you can always sell it.

roombarobot: Might I suggest thinking like this: You already have all the basic focal lengths covered from 24mm to 300mm. The only weaknesses in your range is f-stop or close focusing or maximum sharpness. As a rule of thumb most lenses are at their best about two stops down from their widest opening. At 300mm you are limited to f5.6 so you would have to shoot at f8 or f11 to get the most sharpness that lens can deliver at 300mm. At 24mm you are limited to f3.5 which stopped down for sharpness will have you shooting at f5.6 or f8. At 85mm you are limited to f4.5 which stopped down for sharpness will have you shooting at f8 to f11. You are currently thinking of your current lens selection limitations in terms of millimeters. I suggest thinking in terms of usable f-stops. You have seen many portraits on PAD which have a sharp face and a creamy background. You will not be able to produce that effect at the f-stops you currently have available. You need an f-stop of 1.4 to 2.8 to produce that effect. So that is a limitation which suggests the first prime you should add would be one that lets you do something you now cannot do: shoot at f1.8, f2, and f2.8. This suggests the 50mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.8 as the next lens to buy. Similarly, your two current zooms limit your close focusing on a subject. Try what you have on flowers and see if they focus close enough for you. If not, consider a macro lens as your first prime. This suggests the 60mm 2.8 AF-D. Finally, you are limited in maximum sharpness since your zooms are fully adequate but not the ultimate in sharpness. This suggests a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, 85mm 1.8 or 90mm macro as your first prime. But be forewarned that a very sharp poorly composed photo is still a poor photo and ultimate sharpness with any lens requires the inconvenience of tripod use. I like to think "adequate sharpness to accomplish the task at hand rather than ultimate sharpness."

So, as an exercise, put millimeters out of your head and ask yourself what task you would like to do that your current two zooms don't let you do? Then buy a lens which will let you do that task.

@donaldejose, I agree and was coming around to that as well. I think what I don't have is a fast lens. I've been turning my eyes towards the f1.8G family of primes. Those three (28, 50, & 85) seem to be well regarded by most. Probably time to think more, research more, and most importantly, save some more.

@roombarobot - I think you should consider saving your money and buying a really good piece of pro glass when you can afford it. Whatever you get should offer you something significant beyond what you now have. For example the Zeiss that msmoto suggests would be a worthy goal. Another possibility is the 105 micro VR (I prefer it to the 60 for macro work), a third would be either the 105 or 135 DC lenses (both are f/2) for the incredible bokeh. Or how about one of the PC lenses. If you have your heart set on one of the primes in the focal length you originally listed, I think it should be a f/1.4 (both the 50mm G & D are pretty good.) Of course the 24mm f/1.4 is incredible. But having said all that I think the lens that you would enjoy the most is the 14-24 f/2.8.

If you start buying good glass now, you will still have it in 20 years.... but the D600 is sure to be obsolete.

If you start buying good glass now, you will still have it in 20 years.... but the D600 is sure to be obsolete.

That is good advice even though most ignore it because they think the next generation gadget (body) is going to give them better pictures than good glass.

I wonder how many people here made a one generation jump on a body and have come to realise (or can bring themselves to admit) that pro glass would have given better results? I realise that now so I will not change my body before I have PRO FX glass now.

spraynpray said:
That is good advice even though most ignore it because they think the next generation gadget (body) is going to give them better pictures than good glass.

I wonder how many people here made a one generation jump on a body and have come to realise (or can bring themselves to admit) that pro glass would have given better results? I realise that now so I will not change my body before I have PRO FX glass now.

They don't call me SkintBrit for nothing. As someone who has invested in the trinity zooms, and 24/50/85mm 1.4G primes over the last couple of years, I can certainly vouch for the advise given by Tao and Spraynpray (and others). My D3s and 700 are still good cameras, but have nose dived in value over the last few months, my lenses on the other hand have held their own. I have made the conscious decision to spend any available funds on glass to start with (which is why I can't afford to buy a couple of D4's at the moment), and have no regrets. I whole heartedly agree with advise given by Eric, to wait until you can buy a pro spec lens, one that will be a drastic improvement on what you already have.

I had the 50/1.8d, and now HAVE the 50/1.8G. The bokeh and build quality of the newer G lens is much better. Sharpness...to me they are close. Really close, but some say the far corners are much better on the G. I know the G is certainly a little better at 1.8-2.0.

The 24-85Vr should serve you well. I NEVER use my zooms at widest setting. NEVER. This goes for 16-35VR, 24-120VR (any version of 24-120 loaded with distortion), or 70-300VR.

You can correct distortion pretty easily on that lens (24-85) as long as you're not trying to shoot at 24mm. I think the 28/1.8 would be the next lens I bought. I did try out the 35/1.4G yesterday at Calumet and it was fabulous. A little overpriced, but great. I like the 35mm FL, it's more versatile than 50mm IMHO. Good luck

-60mm - is the sharpest lens Nikon makes. G or D both are wicked sharp. I have passed on the G since the override and Nano coating mean little for my use.
-105mm (D or G-VR) - is the second sharpest lens Nikon makes.

Beyond these two, everything else is really close. I would say the newest Pro zooms are sharper than the prime equivalents. Anymore with new optics, I no longer assume Primes are always sharper. I haven't used the 24-85vr yet but I'm sure it is quite sharp.

Have you met the 24mm 1.4G yet? Really, really sharp - and fast.

Can´t get a better FX wide angle for Nikon at the moment IMO (the 14-24 is sharp, two stops slower and no filters though. 16-35 f/4 VR is sharp at the wide end, distorts a lot though. And both are clumsier and heavier to carry around than the 24mm G)

Can´t get a better FX wide angle for Nikon at the moment IMO (the 14-24 is sharp, two stops slower and no filters though. 16-35 f/4 VR is sharp at the wide end, distorts a lot though. And both are clumsier and heavier to carry around than the 24mm G)

Why would you say their is "no" filters for the 14-24? Their is the Lee Filter, as well as, the Fotodiox Pro. So with all do respect you statement is incorrect. Is the 24 1.4 sharp....yes indeed it is...would welcome it to my bag in the near future. However, the flexibility of the 14-24 2.8 and its amazing ability to take very sharp images, IMHO, offer the photography far more creative and usable lens.

In closing, when a person has invest close to $2000 worth of capitol in order to obtain either of these lenses, filter cost is really not an issue. So by all means don't come back at me with that. These lenses are made to be shot naked, hence no need UV filter. The only filter on should consider putting in for of these amazing lenses are ND filter or Fluorescent filters.

Can´t get a better FX wide angle for Nikon at the moment IMO (the 14-24 is sharp, two stops slower and no filters though. 16-35 f/4 VR is sharp at the wide end, distorts a lot though. And both are clumsier and heavier to carry around than the 24mm G)

I have not tried any of the new 1.4s (other than the 50mm that I own and the 85mm.) I like smaller primes for walk around purposes and would actually prefer a new 2.8 for it's size.

I will have to get either the 16-35mm or 14-24mm that will be more of a work "need" decision. Depends if I can get into some design firms for interior shots (14-24) if not then I'll get the 16-35mm. Another gig I have a bid in for would push me towards a 24mm or 45mm PC lens or maybe even the 85mm. (maybe a thread I will start soon.) I'll have to rent those to figure that out but I would not be disappointed if it ended up that I need the 24mm.

For me since moving to FX and even before, my preference has moved towards the 50-125mm range. I'm saving up for either the 85mm 1.4g or the 125DC & 85mm 1.8g but that is low on the list. I'm getting close to purging out most of my glass, upgrading a few, and adding a PC or two.

Right now my Tokina 17mm f3.5 ATX is just amazing me. It was my 25mm on DX but now it is showing it's full form - and not disappointing one bit. With the D800 I can crop tons so even being wider than I need is not an issue.